Is belief in God Logical?

[McCulloch]

God is quite logical to me
I understand logic just fine.
The antithessis of there being no God is totally illogical.
The belief [that God exists] would be [logical] too, but yes God is logical.

The question then is, "Does logic support the belief that God exists? Is it illogical that there is no God? "

In order to avoid confusion, for purposes of this debate, the word logic without any modifiers will mean formal deductive logic. If you wish to reference any other form of logic, please distinguish them appropriately, for example, fuzzy logic or modal logic.

Feel free to reference the works of eminent logicians such as, Charles Babbage, Garrett Birkhoff, George Boole, George Boolos, Nick Bostrom, L.E.J. Brouwer, Georg Cantor, Rudolf Carnap, Gregory Chaitin, Graham Chapman, Alonzo Church, John Cleese, René Descartes, Julius Dedekind, Augustus DeMorgan, Michael Dummett, Leonard Euler, Gottlab Frege, Terry Gilliam, Kurt Gödel, Fredrich Hayek, Arend Heyting, David Hilbert, David Hume, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, William Jevons, Immanuel Kant, Stuart Kauffman, Gottfried Leibniz, Ada Lovelace, Jan Łukasiewicz, G. E. Moore, Robert Nozick, William of Ockham, Michael Palin, Blaise Pascal, John Paulos, Giuseppe Peano, Charles Peirce, Karl Popper, Emil Leon Post, Hilary Putnam, Willard van Orman Quine, Frank Ramsey, Julia Hall Bowman Robinson, Bertrand Russell, Claude Shannon, Thoralf Skolem, Alfred Tarski, Alan Turing, Nicolai A. Vasiliev, John Venn, John von Neumann, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alfred North Whitehead, Eugene Wigner or Stephen Wolfram.

[twobitsmedia]

Although I understand the need to understand the rich history behind logic, reason and mathematics as well as the many arguments for God, I object to the claim that belief in God is logical while at the same time claim non-belief is illogical.

Non-belief would not be illogical for you in the sense that you will not believe God exists til God meets your requirements for His existence. The "god" you seek on that criteria probably does not exist.

Is non-experience of God also experience?

Experience with nothing?

His experience of God which he presents as “Spirit” is subjective yet more real then what can be easily explained in psychological or anthropological terms and pregnant with social and cultural meanings.

I have not presented my experience as "spirit." I have presented my experience with spirit. My experience with spirit may have some subjectiveness only because I cannot say for sure that the connection is the same in everyone born again. The holy spirit is also referred to as "comforter" so I can not say what would be "comforting" to one would be the same to another.

The Holy Spirit, the spirit I am referring to, has connected with other people. This was in Mc's OP on the born again thread: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Hence, I cannot provide an experience with the spirit, as it goes where it chooses.

Any study in the area of religious experiences can help us understand the meanings they use with their ritualistic acceptance of mystery.

Maybe

Granted the use of such words as “Spirit” and in Twobit’s case “Logical”, have special meaning to those that share their cultic experiences, but that in no sense means we can’t and don’t understand it.

You have confused the word "experience" with the word "spirit". I am not so sure you do.

[Cathar1950]

I don’t there is an ultimate appeal we humans can make as each step is a human construct related to our experiences, cultures and meanings.
Any appeal to authority rests upon our faithfulness to the objects of devotion no matter how subjective and personal we make it, it rests upon our selection.
Having matured in such an environment, I know exactly what they mean by “Spirit” or “born again” and can also appreciate the fuzzy concepts across cultures and historically.
Don’t think of me as an opponent Twobits, think of yourself as my subject. They are not mysteries to me. No one needs the enlightenment of the spirit to understand your meaning or your special use of personal experiences and the language you use to share them within your group or groups.
I think your ritualistic and cultic use of language is understandable and has certain logic of its own, it is when you expand it into some objective reality that needs some kind of special knowledge or experience that should cause us to call for reasonable justification not more special words and meanings.
I am wondering where to draw lines here as I watch you express very Gnostic and Dualistic ideas. But that is its own problem better looked at in another thread.
One of the principles that allows logic to work is there is some kind of correspondence between our language use and our experiences. When only those that have some special experience or knowledge are the only ones to understand then logic and reason have gone out the window along with any idea of shared experiences.
I am not surprised you might think belief in God is logical or reasonable or at least not unreasonable, but claiming at the same time that non-belief is illogical seems like nothing more then empty rhetoric.

Hence, I cannot provide an experience with the spirit, as it goes where it chooses.

The Bible says it can’t be explained therefore you don’t have to explain it, how convenient.

[twobitsmedia]

I don’t there is an ultimate appeal we humans can make as each step is a human construct related to our experiences, cultures and meanings.
Any appeal to authority rests upon our faithfulness to the objects of devotion no matter how subjective and personal we make it, it rests upon our selection.
Having matured in such an environment, I know exactly what they mean by “Spirit” or “born again” and can also appreciate the fuzzy concepts across cultures and historically.

????

Don’t think of me as an opponent Twobits, think of yourself as my subject.

I find the suggestion disturbing.

They are not mysteries to me. No one needs the enlightenment of the spirit to understand your meaning or your special use of personal experiences and the language you use to share them within your group or groups.

I don't have any reason to believe that the Holy Spirit is not a mystery to you based very much on just what you say.

I think your ritualistic and cultic use of language is understandable and has certain logic of its own, it is when you expand it into some objective reality that needs some kind of special knowledge or experience that should cause us to call for reasonable justification not more special words and meanings.

????

I am wondering where to draw lines here as I watch you express very Gnostic and Dualistic ideas. But that is its own problem better looked at in another thread.

??????????

One of the principles that allows logic to work is there is some kind of correspondence between our language use and our experiences. When only those that have some special experience or knowledge are the only ones to understand then logic and reason have gone out the window along with any idea of shared experiences.

????????????

I am not surprised you might think belief in God is logical or reasonable or at least not unreasonable, but claiming at the same time that non-belief is illogical seems like nothing more then empty rhetoric.

I think this is the only sentence I really understood the point of. But my position is not of "belief" . It appears the logic limits anything after that, since it has already established that God cannot be. It appears that it would break a rule. Maybe someones head would explode? I don't know. Is there like a fear factor that keeps the rules from being transgressed against?

Hence, I cannot provide an experience with the spirit, as it goes where it chooses.

The Bible says it can’t be explained therefore you don’t have to explain it, how convenient.

Would glasses help you? That is not even remotely what I said and you even have it highlighted. Or, is that what you are really understanding when I say that?

[Furrowed Brow]

This is not exhaustive.

So it is illogical to take it all in. Sounds like a congressional committee or an IRS law.

No. Just got fed up with typing the list. Plus I don’t know every theorem off the top of my head.

So, you are creating logic out of ancient writings?

Not really twobits . The principles work. Like many principles with ancient origins. The wheel was first made thousands of years ago, it still works. Though the geometry is understood better than the ancients understood it. The forces needed to move a wheel understood. Logic is an ancient subject true, but it is also an ongoing business. However its basic principles remain sound. Boole did not envision the silicon chip. but the computer you type your posts onto is a Boolean computer. Some of its higher level programming will incorporate segments of predicate logic - (that's largely down to Frege and Russell, + others who came after them). Alonzo Church (+ indirectly Turing) tell us why we can't compute all segments of predicate logic. If knowledge is accurate, and sound we tend to keep referring to it.

Hmmm, Now where have I heard that argument before? That’s even older the modern day Bible is supposed to be in its current form,

Well if you can use the bible to calculate how to send men to the moon, or if it provides the principles for building a computer, or anything….then maybe the attempt at the analogy gets off the ground.

In a way logic looks after itself.

Because why?

Because what is sound is sound. |- p -> p, is a theorem and true on no assumptions. It is impossible to think if it were ever false.

Really. How telling. So, if someone thinks outside of it, the logical world explodes or something? Is it like the forbidden zone?

Okay go for it. Break the rules. Break the rule |- P -> P. What are you thinking? Not that rule. Choose any you think you can break

So I can create a false premise and the rules of how to think are going to reel me in to what is "politically" I mean, logically correct?

An argument that begins with a false premise can still be valid. Such arguments are just called unsound.

I guess free thinkers really aren't free as I suspected.

Depends what you mean by free thinking. You are free to form any opinion you want. Logic says nothing about the world. It simply marks the limits of valid argument. The problem is it also marks the limits of thought. You can try to go beyond the limits if you wish. But you’ll only end up talking nonsense.

No matter I am surer you will be able to rationalize my comments since you have the rule book. And I thought Old Testament law was rigid....

Well you can break any of the ten commandments but you can’t turn an invalid argument into a valid one.

If FBs idea of logic is correct, then FBs false premise will be shown to be false.

Logic deals with arguments which have an antecedent and a consequent. The question is how do we move validly from one to the other. A formal logical system cannot tell you whether the antecedent, or the starting premise is true. Unless of course the premise is itself another antecedent-consequent argument.

[Furrowed Brow]

Apparently FBs list of "logic" rules is non exhaustive. If it is, then that means he is not operating on logic, but only the parts he read and, maybe, accepts. Is partial logic logical? What a paradox.

Some areas of logic have different rules. For instance, second order predicate logic, modal logic and various kinds of non standard multi valued logics and fuzzy logic. Logic is a live subject. So there are different schools, and yes they are not all universally accepted. For example, Plantinga provides a modal argument for the existence of God that is valid within modal logic. But outside of modal logic the argument carries no weight and is hotly disputed. Some think fuzzy logic is really just probability theory dressed up. As for your argument from spirit you need to clearly define your axioms and rules of inference. If you have some new rule then you can call yourself an heretical logician. Maybe you need to sign up to a non standard logic. It would be helpful if you could tell us which one, and show us how you are using that logic correctly. This is something you have systematically failed to do. Until then you are just being evasive.

[McCulloch]

Every allegedly logical argument for the existence of God falls short. Here is a brief list.

That is a joke right? Please tell me that is not really something you consider as a source of logic?

I am glad that you are the one to call the list a joke. You see, the list is made up of claims made by Christian theologians over the ages all attempting to show that their belief that God exists is logical. For me, an atheist, to call these attempts by learned scholars a joke would be labeled as intolerant and perhaps anti-religious. No, I don't consider any of these as valid logic, but then again I have not found any valid logic supporting the idea that God exists. 2Bits, on the other hand, has made the claim that logic supports the idea that God exists and the idea that God does not exist is totally illogical.

[Nick_A]

I don’t there is an ultimate appeal we humans can make as each step is a human construct related to our experiences, cultures and meanings.
Any appeal to authority rests upon our faithfulness to the objects of devotion no matter how subjective and personal we make it, it rests upon our selection.
Having matured in such an environment, I know exactly what they mean by “Spirit” or “born again” and can also appreciate the fuzzy concepts across cultures and historically.
Don’t think of me as an opponent Twobits, think of yourself as my subject. They are not mysteries to me. No one needs the enlightenment of the spirit to understand your meaning or your special use of personal experiences and the language you use to share them within your group or groups.
I think your ritualistic and cultic use of language is understandable and has certain logic of its own, it is when you expand it into some objective reality that needs some kind of special knowledge or experience that should cause us to call for reasonable justification not more special words and meanings.
I am wondering where to draw lines here as I watch you express very Gnostic and Dualistic ideas. But that is its own problem better looked at in another thread.
One of the principles that allows logic to work is there is some kind of correspondence between our language use and our experiences. When only those that have some special experience or knowledge are the only ones to understand then logic and reason have gone out the window along with any idea of shared experiences.
I am not surprised you might think belief in God is logical or reasonable or at least not unreasonable, but claiming at the same time that non-belief is illogical seems like nothing more then empty rhetoric.

Hence, I cannot provide an experience with the spirit, as it goes where it chooses.

The Bible says it can’t be explained therefore you don’t have to explain it, how convenient.

I guess you would say that the following are expressions of ignorance normal for a fool lacking in logic:

Marrhew 13:

16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

and

"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me....
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.

You lack experience so deny. The more you deny, the more you deny opportunities for experience. The more denial becomes a part of you the easier it is to assert what is logical for you in that you are intellectually superior to your subject than and therefore "right"

Don’t think of me as an opponent Twobits, think of yourself as my subject. They are not mysteries to me. No one needs the enlightenment of the spirit to understand your meaning or your special use of personal experiences and the language you use to share them within your group or groups.

Imagined superiority is supportive for the logic of denial and don't be surprised if you receive an autographed picture of the Great Beast himself in all his glory inscribed to you with "For service above and beyond the call of duty."

[twobitsmedia]

This is not exhaustive.

So it is illogical to take it all in. Sounds like a congressional committee or an IRS law.

No. Just got fed up with typing the list.

Which means it is exhaustive.

Plus I don’t know every theorem off the top of my head.

Which means you do not know if it is exhaustive.

So, you are creating logic out of ancient writings?

Not really twobits . The principles work. Like many principles with ancient origins. The wheel was first made thousands of years ago, it still works. Though the geometry is understood better than the ancients understood it. The forces needed to move a wheel understood. Logic is an ancient subject true, but it is also an ongoing business. However its basic principles remain sound. Boole did not envision the silicon chip. but the computer you type your posts onto is a Boolean computer. Some of its higher level programming will incorporate segments of predicate logic - (that's largely down to Frege and Russell, + others who came after them). Alonzo Church (+ indirectly Turing) tell us why we can't compute all segments of predicate logic. If knowledge is accurate, and sound we tend to keep referring to it.

Hmmm, Now where have I heard that argument before? That’s even older the modern day Bible is supposed to be in its current form,

Well if you can use the bible to calculate how to send men to the moon, or if it provides the principles for building a computer, or anything….then maybe the attempt at the analogy gets off the ground.

In a way logic looks after itself.

Because why?

Because what is sound is sound. |- p -> p, is a theorem and true on no assumptions. It is impossible to think if it were ever false.

Really. How telling. So, if someone thinks outside of it, the logical world explodes or something? Is it like the forbidden zone?

Okay go for it. Break the rules. Break the rule |- P -> P. What are you thinking? Not that rule. Choose any you think you can break

You are decribing observations mostly. And concluding that the observations can go no further than they are observed.

So I can create a false premise and the rules of how to think are going to reel me in to what is "politically" I mean, logically correct?

An argument that begins with a false premise can still be valid. Such arguments are just called unsound.

Based on the criteria which judges what is "unsound"

I guess free thinkers really aren't free as I suspected.

Depends what you mean by free thinking. You are free to form any opinion you want. Logic says nothing about the world. It simply marks the limits of valid argument. The problem is it also marks the limits of thought. You can try to go beyond the limits if you wish. But you’ll only end up talking nonsense.

Up above your examples or analogies did say something about the world, but here you say they do not. I presume that because their are so many of them, that whichever one wants to use is applicable.
But this is the crux of the issue: "It simply marks the limits of valid argument. The problem is it also marks the limits of thought." I contend that it marks the ends of acceptible thought. Anything outside of it might be deemed nonsense or it might really be. If they stand as only obervations of the end of thought, then they really serve no purpose or necessity as a reference because thought will stop anyway. Go ahead, "Choose any you think you can break " would be a moot question, of course, but so would "nonsense" because "nonsense" would not be possible.....unless, of course, there is some criteria established within the "rules" which make that judgment and really do not observe the end of thought but rather makes rules to limit it. There then comes the subjective nature of the logic. 1)very few people know any of the rules of logic, 2) very few people care about the rules of logic, 3) if they did...I suspect that few would adhere to them just because reality is different than the rules.

No matter I am surer you will be able to rationalize my comments since you have the rule book. And I thought Old Testament law was rigid....

Well you can break any of the ten commandments but you can’t turn an invalid argument into a valid one.

Actually it would be since God exists. But your limits of acceptible thought say, I presume, is that cannot be, or is not so, based on whatever criteria you accept as logic.

[McCulloch]

the topic of this thread is not whether or not logic is a valid methodology, but is to evaluate your claim that belief in the existence of God is, in fact, logical.

So you would accept an invalid methodology just to make some kind of point and think it would mean something about the existence of God? I can save you the trouble. The answer is no: God is illogical to you by your methodology (ie your rules for thought) (and the fact that you already said it).

I would not accept an invalid methodology in order to to make a point. 2Bits has claimed that God is logical to him and that God is illogical to me. This highlights our fundamental difference with regard to what is logic. I understand and agree with all recognized logicians that logic itself is not subjective. If something is logical to you then it should be logical to me. We may disagree on the truth of the conclusion, because we disagree on the truth of the various premises, but we should not disagree on the logic. If we do, then one or the other of us is using invalid logic. 2Bits seems to have a different view on the meaning of logic. In stead of using the commonly understood definition of logic, he has struck out on his own and has created something he calls logic which is subjective and different for each person.

But now, having cleared that up: God is and He is logical. 1)I used to not believe in God, 2) I then believed in God, 3)I then experienced the Holy Spirit, 4) and now I know God is and it would be illogical for me to say God does not exist.

I expect that this is supposed to be logic. This is the classic argument from personal experience. 2Bits has had an experience that he has identified as being the Holy Spirit. From that, he has concluded that God exists.

I presume that you cannot get past 3, and because of 4 have doubts about 1.

Now we are arguing about the premises not the logic. I will take your word on 1 and assume that you did at one time not believe in God. I will also accept as true premise 2, that at some subsequent point you believed in God. Premise 3, that you experienced the Holy Spirit is of course subjective. You experienced something profound. This profound event, you attributed to or were led to attribute to the entity described in the Bible as the Holy Spirit. So the logic runs something like this:

1. I have experienced something profound that I believe is God
2. Therefore, God exists

I would not like to call this kind of logic invalid, but I might point out that 2Bits called it a joke.

Mac has presented a sense of formal logic. Like mathematics and mathematical symbols, it is objective.

His logic is not like mathematics.

Logic is very much like mathematics.

False premise on top of false premise will not add up though. It will add up to something, but the answer could be just about anything.

Logic is very much like mathematics. Both, for example use a symbolic language as a universal shorthand to express their ideas. In math we might use rather than say that the unknown is equal to minus the second coefficient plus or minus the square root of the second coefficient squared minus the first coefficient times the third all divided by twice the first coefficient. The symbolic language has the advantage of being less ambiguous, less wordy, more easily understood by those who are familiar with the symbols and not dependent on any specific natural language. Logic too has its own symbolic language. For instance, logicians might write ¬(P ∧ ¬P) rather than say the proposition cannot be both true and not true. But since you understand logic just fine, you are aware of this.
In fact, it is impossible to contemplate an expert in pure mathematics who is not very well versed in formal logic. The boundary between the two disciplines would be difficult or impossible to identify. Anyway, contrary to 2Bits assertion, logic is very much like mathematics.

I have reviewed 2Bits' posts in this thread and the Born Again thread to see if there was any actual logic presented. I found none. Perhaps someone could point me to a specific post with his logical arguments please.

And then re-read it and see where I have stated repeatedly that anything past "spirit" is illogical to you based on your established criteria for what is logical.

I have re-read them. I still fail to see any actual logic being presented. This logically leads to one of two conclusions:

1. There is logic presented by 2Bits in these threads and I did not detect it OR
2. There is no logic presented by 2Bits in these threads

If a) then would someone please either restate the logic, provide a link to a specific posting that contains logic or indicate the posting number where 2Bits logic is to be found.
If b) then either

1. 2Bits is unaware that something he believes to be a logical argument is, in fact, not one OR
2. 2Bits is aware that his arguments and his posts are devoid of logic.

If b.1) then would someone please either restate the logic, provide a link to a specific posting that contains logic or indicate the posting number where 2Bits logic is to be found. That way we can more fully understand 2Bits own private meaning of the concept of logic and not misunderstand his claims in the future.
If b.2) then please post something insulting or a non sequitur and we can draw our own conclusions about the poster.

[twobitsmedia]

Apparently FBs list of "logic" rules is non exhaustive. If it is, then that means he is not operating on logic, but only the parts he read and, maybe, accepts. Is partial logic logical? What a paradox.

Some areas of logic have different rules.

Of course they do

For instance, second order predicate logic, modal logic and various kinds of non standard multi valued logics and fuzzy logic. Logic is a live subject. So there are different schools, and yes they are not all universally accepted.

They are not universally accepted becasue of the subjective nature of it.

As for your argument from spirit you need to clearly define your axioms and rules of inference.

There's no argument "from spirit". It begins with the Holy Spirit as a personal esperience. Everything adds from there.

If you have some new rule then you can call yourself an heretical logician. Maybe you need to sign up to a non standard logic.

But that would suggest, again, that logic has some subjectiveness to it. I beleive I have been told ad nauseum that is is NOT subjective.

It would be helpful if you could tell us which one, and show us how you are using that logic correctly. This is something you have systematically failed to do. Until then you are just being evasive.

I have not evaded anything. I have been very clear in stating my position and why. But I notice when it gets read back to me it is nothing like what has been stated. Some rule of logic, not mine, seems to change the acceptibility of it. Even you missed it, it appears. What rule keeps you from doing that?